Aboitiz International Forwarders v. Philippine Charter Insurance
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) filed a complaint against Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. (AIFI) and others for the collection of P269,349.54. PCIC alleged that AIFI, acting as a forwarder, failed to deliver a shipment of glass making machine parts from Philadelphia, USA, to Manila, Philippines. The consignee had insured the cargo with PCIC, and upon its non-delivery, PCIC paid the insured and was subrogated to the consignee's rights against the defendants. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was filed on October 3, 1992. Summons and complaint were allegedly served on AIFI on October 22, 1992, through Lita Apostol. AIFI and another defendant were declared in default on November 27, 1992, after PCIC's motion. PCIC later amended its complaint to include a claim for attorney's fees, but AIFI was not served a copy of this motion. On July 11, 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment in favor of PCIC, ordering AIFI and its co-defendants to pay the principal amount, interest, and attorney's fees. AIFI received a copy of this decision on July 24, 1996, but failed to appeal. Subsequently, a writ of execution and notice of garnishment were issued. On October 11, 1996, AIFI filed a petition for relief from judgment with the RTC, which was denied on February 3, 1997. The RTC's denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 16, 1999. 3. The Petition: AIFI filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. AIFI argued that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over it due to invalid service of summons and complaint on Lita Apostol, whom AIFI claims was merely a customer service representative and not an authorized agent. AIFI also contended that it was not served with the amended complaint, judgment, or subsequent orders. The CA had ruled that the petition for relief was not the proper remedy and that service of process was valid. AIFI maintains that its petition for relief was the appropriate recourse and that the CA erred in its findings regarding jurisdiction and the validity of service.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief from judgment was the proper remedy for petitioner AIFI. Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner AIFI due to the alleged invalid service of summons, and whether Lita Apostol was an authorized agent of petitioner AIFI for the service of summons and complaint. Whether Lita Apostol was an authorized agent of petitioner AIFI for the service of summons and complaint. Whether petitioner AIFI had a meritorious defense. Whether the case is moot and academic due to the satisfaction of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in affirming the denial of the petition for relief from judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for relief from judgment: The Court held that a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is available only on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioner AIFI's sole ground was the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. If AIFI's claim of lack of jurisdiction were true, then all proceedings, including the judgment, would be null and void. In such a scenario, a petition for relief under Rule 38 is inappropriate; the proper recourse would be a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to nullify the proceedings for having been rendered without jurisdiction. Therefore, AIFI's chosen remedy was procedurally flawed. On the jurisdiction of the RTC and service of summons: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the service of summons on Lita Apostol, identified as a documentary clerk, was valid. The process server's return, which stated Apostol was a documentary clerk, is accorded greater weight due to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Furthermore, as a documentary clerk, Apostol was considered an agent of AIFI for the purpose of receiving court processes, as her role was integrated with the corporation's business, making it supposable that she would know what to do with legal papers. The Court also noted that AIFI failed to present Apostol as a witness to controvert the process server's return, despite being given the opportunity. On Lita Apostol's agency: The Court reiterated that an agent for service of process need not be an officer of the corporation. Lita Apostol, as a documentary clerk, was deemed an agent because her duties were integrated with AIFI's business, implying she was authorized to receive and act upon legal documents served upon the corporation. This aligns with the principle that service on an agent, even one with limited authority, is sufficient. The Court found it a priori supposable that Apostol, as documentary clerk, was tasked with receiving and forwarding legal documents to responsible officers. On the meritorious defense: The Court found that AIFI failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense. Its claims of exercising extraordinary diligence and attributing the loss to co-defendants were unsubstantiated by any factual basis. The Court emphasized that such assertions, without supporting evidence, are mere conclusions and do not establish a valid defense against the claim of respondent PCIC. On the mootness of the petition: The Court clarified that the petition was not mooted by the alleged satisfaction of the judgment. It noted the lack of evidence proving satisfaction through the sheriff's garnishment. Even if satisfied, AIFI was not precluded from assailing the validity of the judgment and the execution processes through appeals or other appropriate legal remedies.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy when the petitioner claims lack of jurisdiction over its person due to invalid service of summons, as such a claim renders all proceedings void, making recourse to a petition for relief inappropriate. The proper remedies in such a situation would be a motion for reconsideration or appeal, or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.